Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40800610›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of nursing studies advances2025

Decision support strategies for bedside nursing clinical reasoning: A scoping review.

Lara Daniela Matos Cunha, Filipa Ventura, Márcia Pestana-Santos, Mauro Mota, Lurdes Lomba, Margarida Reis Santos

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of nursing studies advances, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Decision support strategies for bedside nursing clinical reasoning: A scoping review.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Lara Daniela Matos CunhaHealth Sciences Research Unit: Nursing (UICISA: E), Nursing School of Coimbra (ESEnfC), Coimbra, Portugal.
Filipa VenturaHealth Sciences Research Unit: Nursing (UICISA: E), Nursing School of Coimbra (ESEnfC), Coimbra, Portugal.
Márcia Pestana-SantosNursing School of Coimbra (ESEnfC), Coimbra, Portugal.
Mauro MotaHealth Sciences Research Unit: Nursing (UICISA: E), Nursing School of Coimbra (ESEnfC), Coimbra, Portugal.
Lurdes LombaNursing School of Coimbra (ESEnfC), Coimbra, Portugal.
Margarida Reis SantosSchool of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences (ICBAS) - University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Proficiency in clinical reasoning is crucial for achieving positive patient outcomes in healthcare. Nurses should take an active role in fostering their clinical reasoning skills. Bedside support strategies aim to offer practical, invaluable, and easily applicable resources for restructuring cognitive processes in situations of complex clinical demands. Objective: This review aimed to map evidence on bedside decision strategies applied by nurses to support clinical reasoning. Methods: The review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute recommendations for scoping reviews. Information: Sources Studies were retrieved from Medline (PubMed), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, Cochrane CENTRAL, RCAAP (Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal), and Google Scholar. Studies published in Portuguese, English, Spanish, or Swedish, without imposing geographical or cultural restrictions were considered. Qualitative and quantitative studies on bedside decision strategies that support nursing clinical reasoning were included, while studies exclusively focused on education, case-specific content, or Artificial Intelligence applications were excluded. Results: Out of 1889 results, 14 studies met the inclusion criteria. The studies were conducted in countries such as China, New Zealand, Norway, Brazil, Indonesia, Canada, Ireland, the United Kingdom, United States, and Australia, involving nurses, patients, and healthcare teams, with study designs ranging from qualitative research and cohort studies to quasi-experimental and theoretical analyses.These studies identified two key strategies: normative (following guidelines) and reflective (based on critical self-reflection). Conclusions: Reflective strategies are widely used at the bedside, emphasizing the importance of adaptability in uncertain clinical environments. Despite Artificial Intelligence's role in clinical decision-making, fostering critical thinking and decision-making skills in nurses remains essential. Registration: OSF https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/H96VQ. Tweetable abstract: A scoping review identified normative and reflective bedside strategies used by nurses to support clinical reasoning, highlighting the value of adaptability and critical thinking in complex care settings. #ClinicalReasoning #Nursing #PatientCare.

Indexed as

Clinical problem-solvingClinical reasoningDecision-makingDecision supportNursing

Identifiers

PMID40800610
PMCPMC12341538

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.